JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barsar, hence convicted the accused Kamal Dev, for, commission, of, offence punishable under Section 325 and 504 IPC, whereas, he acquitted him, vis--vis, commission, of, an offence, punishable under Sections 325 and 506 IPC, whereas, he has made an order, of, acquittal, vis--vis, coaccused Purshotam Chand, Prakash Chand, and, Sonu Kumar, vis--vis, the charge(s) framed against them, under, Sections 341, 325, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Magistrate, also, imposed consequential therewith sentence, of, imprisonment, and, of, fine, upon, the, accused/convict, Kamal Dev. 2. State of H.P., has not challenged, the, findings, of acquittal, as became returned, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, vis--vis, coaccused, Sonu Kumar, Purshotam Chand, and, Prakash Chand, and, hence, the verdict, of, acquittal, as, becomes pronounced qua them, hence acquires conclusivity. 3. Co-Convict Kamal Dev, becoming aggrieved, from the order, of, conviction, and, consequent therewith sentences, becoming pronounced against him, on 17.12.2007, by the learned trial Magistrate, hence cast a challenge thereon, through his instituting, thereagainst, a, criminal appeal, bearing No. 4 of 2008, before the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, and, the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, recorded an order, of, acquittal thereon. The State of H.P., becoming aggrieved therefrom, has, instituted thereagainst, the, instant criminal appeal, before this Court. 4. The initial effect, of, the State of H.P., of, not challenging the order, of, acquittal, as, become pronounced, by, the learned trial Magistrate, vis--vis, co-accused Purshottam Chand, Prakash chand and Sonu Kumar, assumes utmost significance, (i) as, besides the afore verdict, of, acquittal, as, became pronounced, vis--vis, them, rather assuming an aura of validity, and also hence, working an inference qua the prosecution case, vis--vis, them, inasmuch as, qua theirs alongwith coaccused, Kamal Dev, belaboring Pradeep Kumar, and, Vipin, hence with kick blows, and, with danda blows, rather becoming falsified, (ii) and concomitantly, also, the testimonies, as rendered with intrase, and, interse consistencies, hence by the prosecution witnesses concerned, also, becoming, falsified. The sequelling effect, thereof, is, qua the ascribed incriminatory role(s), vis--vis, coaccused, Sonu Kumar, Prakash Chand, and, Purshotam Chand, becoming, falsified, becoming hence falsified, therefrom concomitantly, even qua, hence, the incriminatory role, as, becomes, attributed, to, the co-accused, Kamal Dev, also becoming tained, with, a pervasive vice, of, fabrication. The sequelling effect, thereof, is, qua the ascribed incriminatory role(s), vis--vis, coaccused, Sonu Kumar, Prakash Chand, and, Purshotam Chand, becoming, falsified, becoming hence falsified, therefrom concomitantly, even qua, hence, the incriminatory role, as, becomes, attributed, to, the co-accused, Kamal Dev, also becoming tained, with, a pervasive vice, of, fabrication. The reasons, for, making the afore conclusion, arise, (iii) from the factum, vis--vis, though prosecution witnesses concerned, rather making consistent testification(s), free from any taint, of any interse or intrase contradiction, vis- -vis-, the afore acquitted, co-accused, hence assaulting Pradeep Kumar, and, Vipin Kumar, with danda, (iv) and, yet neither, the, danda, nor the afore Pradeep Kumar and Vipin Kumar, becoming medically examined, for, hence validating, the, afore testification(s), made by the prosecution witnesses, thereupon, the prosecution case, both staggers and, also becomes belied. 5. Be that as it may, the co-accused, Kamal Dev, vis--vis, whom, an order, of, conviction, and, also, vis--vis, whom, hence consequent therewith sentence(s), rather became pronounced/imposed, by, the learned trial Magistrate, rather thereagainst, instituted criminal appeal bearing No. 4 of 2008, before, the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, whereon, an, order of acquittal became recorded, upon him. Though, the prosecution witnesses concerned, testify qua, his, with user of iron rod, rather inflicting blows, upon, the victims concerned, yet it remained efficaciously unrecoursed. However, further even though, the afore iron rod, became recovered, through a memo drawn, by the Investigating Officer concerned, yet, it became neither tendered into evidence, nor became exhibited, and, the afore wants, bolster an inference, vis--vis, hence the prosecution, acquiescing, (a) qua the afore recovery of iron rod, purportedly, made, at the instance, of, the co-accused Kamal Dev, becoming vitiated, through, the apposite mandatory enunciations, borne vis--vis, Section 27, of, the Indian Evidence Act, becoming breached, inasmuch, as, (b) the, enshrined, statutory parameters, vis--vis, it becoming enjoined to be recovered, in pursuance, of, an apt disclosure statement, becoming made, hence, by the afore accused, and, also the afore made disclosure statement(s), becoming, drawn, besides the, apposite consequential therewith, recoveries becoming proven, qua theirs'' becoming validly recovered, through, the afore drawn memos, (c) furthermore conspicuously, through, theirs becoming tendered, and, exhibited, before, the, learned trial Court, (d) moreover, obviously, theirs'' becoming proven, by witnesses thereto. Since, as aforestated, neither the disclosure statement, of, the co-accused Kamal Dev, and, appertaining, to, the iron rod, purportedly, used by him, in assaulting the victims, concerned, rather became, validly drawn, at his instance, hence by the Investigating Officer concerned, nor when, thereafter, it became recovered, through, an appositely drawn recovery memo(s), nor when thereafter, the, witnesses thereto, stepped, into, the witness box, (e) thereupon, the alleged user, of, iron rod, by, accused Kamal Dev, for his, hence inflicting injuries, upon the victims concerned, becomes falsified, (f) also when, despite, the relevant site, of, occurrence, becoming inhabitated, by, shop-keepers, and, yet, none of them, becoming associated, by, the Investigating Officer concerned, in the relevant investigation, nor theirs'' stepping into witness box, for, theirs deposing, vis--vis, the charge, (g)whereas, they comprised the best, impartisan, evidence vis--vis, the relevant occurrence, (h) conspicuously, when rather evidently, the victims hold hence interse close relations, hence their deposed interested, and, tainted versions, vis--vis, the occurrence rather acquire(s), a, stain, of, inveracity. 6. Further onwards, even though, the, apposite MLCs, borne in Ext. PW1/A, became proven, and, also when the learned defence counsel, during, the course of his holding, PW-5 to the cross-examination, has put suggestions, to, him, vis--vis, the victim Pradeep Kumar, lifting from shop, an iron rod, and, with user thereof, his hence inflicting blows, upon Kamal Dev, (a) thereupon he contends qua, the, defence, acquiescing, vis--vis, the user, of, iron rod, by, accused Kamal Dev. The afore suggestion, became denied by PW-5, yet, the mere meteing of the afore suggestions, to him, is, with immense perseverance, contended, by, the learned Additional Advocate General, to become significatory, vis--vis, the user, of, iron rod, by the victim, becoming acquiesced, by the defence. However, the afore contention(s) warrants, its, immediate rejection, as, the afore suggestion(s), does, not hold any aura, of, acquiescing truth, as, despite, the prosecution witnesses, rather testifying, vis--vis, coaccused, assaulting one Pradeep Kumar and Vipin Kumar, with danda, (b) and, yet, the danda, becoming un-recovered, and, nor also the afore becoming medically examined, (c) thereupon, it appears that, the, afore Pradeep Kumar, in exercise of, the apt right of private defence of his person, his lifting the iron rod, and, his proceeding to strike a blow, with its user, upon accused Kamal Dev. Pre-eminently also, the lack, of, efficacious recovery, of, iron rod, renders, the, effects, if any. Pre-eminently also, the lack, of, efficacious recovery, of, iron rod, renders, the, effects, if any. the, afore meted, hence suggestions, to PW-5, during, his cross-examination, rather to not beget any overriding(s), vis--vis, the, statutory necessity, of, completest proof, rather becoming adduced, by, the prosecution, for, ensuring qua, the, apposite recovery becoming validated, through adoption, of, the statutory modes, (d) modes, whereof remained unrecoursed, (e) moreso when despite, the, memo(s), qua therewith, becoming prepared, by, the prosecution, yet theirs neither becoming tendered into, evidence nor becoming exhibited, nor proof, qua the validity, of, preparation thereof, becoming adduced, (f) whereupon, the afore suppression(s), as, became practiced, by, the prosecution, contrarily, countervails, the effects, if, any, of afore suggestion(s), as, meted to PW-5,during, his cross-examination, as any making(s), of, any validity thereto, would undo, all the afore statutory necessities, of, and, would also render redundant, the, statutory necessity, of, adduction, of the afore imperative proof(s), qua, the, afore factum probandem. 7. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned appellate Court, has, appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome, and, harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by the learned appellate Court, does not suffer, from, any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record. 8. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The Judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.